James E. McDonald statement, Symposium on UFOs, House Committee on Science and Astronautics

appeared flat. The T-33 was put into a descending turn to try to close on the object but the latter turned more tightly
(the airmen stated) and passed rapidly eastward towards the coast of New Jersey and out to sea. A pair of weather
balloons (probably radiosonde balloons but no information thereon given in the files) had been released from the
Evans Signal Laboratory near Ft. Monmouth, and the official evaluation indicates that this is what the airmen saw.
However, it is stated that the balloons were released at 1112 EDST, and the sighting began at about 1135 EDST with
the T-33 over Point Pleasant, N.J. In that elapsed time, a radiosonde balloon, inflated to rise at the 800-900 ft/min
rate used for such devices, would have attained an altitude of about 17-18,000 ft, the analysis notes. From this point
on, the official analysis seems to be built on erroneous inferences. The airmen said that, as they tried to turn on the
object, it appeared to execute a 120-degree turn over Freehold, N.J., before speeding out over the Atlantic. But from
the upper winds for that day, it is clear that the Ft. Monmouth balloon trajectory would have taken it to the northeast,
and by 1135, it would have been about over the coast in the vicinity of Sea Bright. Hence, at no time in the interval
involved could the line of sight from T-33 to balloon have intersected Freehold, which lies about 15 miles WSW of
the balloon release- point. Instead, had the airmen some how seen the radiosonde balloon from Pt. Pleasant, it would
have lain to about their N or NNE and would have stayed in about that sector until they passed it. Furthermore, the
size of the balloon poses a serious difficulty for the official analysis. Assuming that it had expanded to a diameter of
about 15 feet as it ascended to about the 18,000-ft level, it would have subtended an arc of only 0.6 min, as seen
from the T-33 when the latter passed over Pt. Pleasant. This angular size is, for an unaided eye, much too small to fit
the airmen's descriptions of what they tried to intercept. In a press interview (Ref. 40), the pilot, Wilbert S. Rogers
of Columbia, Pa., said the object was "perfectly round and flat" and that the center of the disc was raised "about six
feet" and that it appeared to be moving at an airspeed of the order of 900 mph. The entire reasoning on which the
balloon evaluation is elaborated fails to fit readily established points in the official case-summary.
Discussion:
The possibility that a pilot can be misled by depth perception errors and Coordinate-reference errors to misconstrue
a weather balloon as a fast- maneuvering object must always be kept in mind. But in the Ft. Monmouth instance, as
in many others that could be discussed in detail, there is a very large gap between the balloon hypothesis and the
facts. The basic sighting-report here is quite similar to many other daytime sightings by airborne observers who have
seen unconventional disc-like objects pass near their aircraft.
2. Case 32. Odessa, Wash., December 10. 1952:
According to an official case-summary (Ref. 7, Rept. 10), two airmen in an F-94 "made visual and radar contact
with a large, round white object larger than any known type of aircraft" near 1915 PST on 12/10/52 near Odessa.
The radar operator in the F-94 had airborne radar contact with the object for 15 minutes, and during that same
interval, ground radar was also tracking it. The summary states that "the object appeared to be level with the
intercepting F-94 at 26,000 to 27,000 ft," and it is pointed out that "a dim reddish-white light came from the object
as it hovered, reversed direction almost instantaneously and then disappeared." It is stated that the skies were clear
above 3000 ft. The official evaluation of this incident is "Possible Balloon", although the report notes that no upper-
air research balloon was known to be in the area on this date. The principal basis for calling it a balloon was the
observers' description of "large, round and white and extremely large", and it was remarked that the instrument
package on some balloon flights is capable of yielding a radar return.
Discussion:
To conclude that this was a "Possible Balloon" just on the basis of the description, "large, round and white and
extremely large", and thereby to ignore the instantaneous course reversal and the inability of a 600-mph jet to close
with it over a period of 15 minutes seems unreasonable. We may ignore questions of wind speeds at the altitude of
the object and the F-94 because both would enjoy the same "tail wind effect". In 15 minutes, the F-94 would be
capable of moving 150 miles relative to any balloon at its altitude. On the other hand, airborne radar sets of that
period would scarcely detect a target of cross-section represented by the kinds of instrument packages hung on
balloons of the Skyhook type, unless the aircraft were within something like 10 or 15 miles of it. Yet it is stated that
the F-94 was pursuing it under radar contact for a time interval corresponding to an airpath ten times that distance.
Clearly, categorizing this unknown as a "balloon" was incompatible with the reported details of the case.